Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs
Issue 2 - Evidence, February 3, 2003
OTTAWA, Monday, February 3, 2003
The Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 10:00 a.m. to examine the health care provided to veterans of war and of peacekeeping missions; the implementation of the recommendations made in its previous reports on such matters; the terms of service, post- discharge benefits and health care of members of the regular and reserve forces as well as members of the RCMP and of civilians who have served in close support of uniformed peacekeepers; and all related matters.
Senator Michael A. Meighen (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Welcome to the Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. We will continue our study on benefits to veterans and specifically, the provisions of the Service Income Security Insurance Plan.
The distinguished Senator Joe Day, from New Brunswick, is our Deputy Chairman of the subcommittee and is an electrical engineering graduate of the Royal Military College in Kingston. Prior to his appointment to the Senate in 2001, Senator Day had a successful career as a private practice lawyer in the areas of patent and trademark law and intellectual property issues. Senator Day is also the Deputy Chairman of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, which is currently examining the financial framework for federally funded, arm's-length foundations. Senator Day is also a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, which is beginning its study on the current state of media industries.
Senator Michael Forrestall served the constituents of Dartmouth as a member of the House of Commons for 25 years and for the past 12 years as their senator. Throughout his parliamentary career, Senator Forrestall has followed defence matters by serving on various parliamentary committees, including the 1993 Special Joint Committee on the Future of Canadian Forces, as well as by representing Canada at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
Senator Jack Wiebe is one of Saskatchewan's leading citizens. He has been a successful farmer, a member of the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly and Lieutenant-Governor. Senator Wiebe is the past president of the Saskatchewan Canadian Forces Liaison Council and is the Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, which is currently examining the impact of climate change on farming and forestry practices across the country.
Senator Norm Atkins is from Ontario and came to the Senate in 1976 with a strong background in the field of communications. Senator Atkins served as advisor to the former Premier of Ontario, William Davis. A graduate in economics from Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Senator Atkins received an honorary doctorate in civil law in 2000 from his alma mater. During his time as senator, he has championed the cause of Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans. Currently, Senator Atkins serves as Chair of Senate Conservative Caucus and as Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Senator Colin Kenny is from Ontario and is Chair of our parent committee, the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. Senator Kenny's early political career began in 1968 as Executive Director of the Liberal Party of Ontario. From 1970 to 1979, he worked in the Prime Minister's Office and in the private sector as an energy executive. During his parliamentary career, Senator Kenny has served on numerous committees including the special committees on anti-terrorism and security, on Canada's defence policy and on illegal drugs. He is also a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. Senator Kenny has also been involved with the NATO parliamentary assembly.
Our first witness today is Major (Ret'd) Bruce Henwood. In 1995, while serving with the eighth Hussars in Croatia as part of a peacekeeping mission, Major Henwood had both legs blown off below the knees by a land mine. He was surprised to discover that the Department of National Defence insurance plan, to which he and other members of the forces were obliged to contribute, would not compensate him for the loss of his legs. Today, we will hear from Major Henwood and from a panel of experts about insurance provisions in the private and public sectors for persons who suffer similar losses.
Major Henwood, please proceed with your opening statement.
Major (Retired) Bruce Henwood: I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing me to make this presentation today in respect of the Canadian Forces' Service Income Security Insurance Plan, SISIP. I am trying to change the way the Canadian Forces, the Department of National Defence and the Government of Canada compensate soldiers who are injured in the line of duty. It is a complex matter that deals with the well-being of the Canadian Forces soldiers who have recently served, are still serving, or will serve in the future.
There are overtones of double standards, ambiguous wordings, misconceptions, failure to meet the needs of today's soldier, ethical and moral questions and, above all, compensation issues. I am singularly focused on the long-term disability, LTD, portion of SISIP called Accidental Dismemberment Benefit or ADB.
I am neither an insurance specialist nor a human resources manager. Rather, I am a former professional soldier who is attempting to change a flawed policy. This presentation will be in five parts: a brief history of how I got here today; my interpretation of SISIP's long-term disability and accidental dismemberment benefits; my unanswered grievance issues; a comparison of benefits illustrating the shortcomings of SISIP; and other issues relating to SISIP and compensation.
Throughout my career, I was trained to look after the well-being of those under my command. I believed that in the event of the unthinkable — death or injury — my subordinates and I would be well looked after by my superiors. I believed that the military would spare no expense to ensure that all the needs of the injured would be met. On September 27, 1995, my life and my world were turned completely upside down, torn inside out and, in many ways, destroyed, when the vehicle I was in struck an anti-tank mine. I suffered serious injuries. The most significant was the bilateral amputation of my legs below my knees.
Shortly after that, I realized that something was not right within the Canadian Armed Forces when it came to looking after the injured.
I have embarked on a seven-year mission to right those shortcomings. SISIP is one, if not the last, of the major hurdles I have encountered. It is called the ``life and disability insurance designed for the Canadian Forces.'' It is a mandatory long-term disability plan. Many a soldier has written home to mom quelling fears about what would happen if the unthinkable occurred, as they had SISIP, which offered long-term disability and term life insurance — just for the military.
SISIP, as you will learn, is two plans wrapped into one. There is SISIP Proper, which offers insurance such as term life, spousal term life and insurance coverage after release from the military. I am not challenging this portion of SISIP. The second plan within SISIP is called the ``Treasury Board Supported Plans.'' The Treasury Board handles the LTD and ADB aspects of the SISIP plan.
LTD provides an income-replacement benefit to the injured soldier, if released from the Canadian Forces. This means that 75 per cent of the pre-injury income is guaranteed by SISIP, less specified benefits from the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, QPP, CPP, and the Pension Act.
This is where things get a little misleading. The definitions used by SISIP are not clearly spelled out in layman's terms. Most soldiers do not know what the Pension Act is. The act only covers war or special duty area related injuries — not injuries that occur while off-duty, during peacetime or in non-operational training. SISIP has another condition that must be met to be eligible for coverage: The soldier must be released from the Canadian Forces within three years of injury. What SISIP does not tell you is that they will not provide you with any information until you are released, because SISIP payments must take into account specified benefits such as the Pension Act before a determination of eligibility can be made. It is kind of a Catch-22.
ADB is calculated in the same manner — that is, 75 per cent of the pre-injury income, less specified benefits, is guaranteed. The reason for ADB is not fully explained by SISIP and it only rates five lines on the Web site. However, ADB is part of the income security plan in the LTD plan. It is also an indemnity against loss of income occasioned by accidental dismemberment. It does not specify what sort of benefit an injured soldier will receive. All that is stated is how long the benefit will be payable, in numbers of months.
It should be noted that Veterans Affairs disability benefits through the Pension Act, which is also supported by the Treasury Board Plan, are based upon the injury itself, marital status and the number of children the injured soldier has. This is important, because when SISIP makes its long-term disability and ADB determinations, personnel who are married with children are at a disadvantage because of the larger benefit provided by the Pension Act. Those with longer service are also placed at a disadvantage, as SISIP uses the military pension from the CFSA as part of its calculation. In my case, being a double amputee who is married with three children and having 22 years' pensionable service placed me at a tremendous disadvantage, to the extent that I received nothing from SISIP. This is the crux of my efforts to change that plan. Accidental dismemberment benefit compensation should be provided based solely upon the injury itself and not mitigated by other factors that are not equally applied.
I was informed by SISIP in the spring of 1997 that I would be denied LTD benefits. Once you are denied coverage, all other SISIP coverage ceases. This includes the rehabilitation programs. The only recourse I had was to submit a Redress of Grievance through the chain of command. This grievance, while locally supported, was not supported by the army. I resubmitted a year later to the Chief of Defence Staff, as I felt the army did not have jurisdiction over Canadian Forces policy.
That resubmission unresolved and mired in bureaucracy to this day. In that document, I stated seven requirements that needed to be addressed to resolve my grievance. I would like to discuss three of those, which are relevant to this presentation.
As I go through the requirements, you will find it difficult to understand why my grievance has not been resolved. My points present moral and ethical issues that senior leadership must address. Failure to do so will deteriorate Canadian Forces morale, damage recruiting and retention, and undermine the leadership ethos.
The first of these three requirements is a review of ADB by an independent third-party expert not associated with SISIP, Maritime Life or the Department of National Defence, with the specific task of examining military, private and public insurance plans. I firmly believe that an examination of SISIP will determine there should be lump sum compensation provided to the injured based solely upon the injury itself.
The second point is that ADB benefits should be clearly published in easy to read text or table matrix format, in order that soldiers can make educated decisions for themselves. I am convinced that if SISIP were to do this, they would see the shortcomings of their plan. This matrix is not difficult to produce. I produced a matrix myself to make sure I was headed in the right direction. That should be the coloured document you have before you.
The results of the matrix are most troubling and illustrate the level of deceptiveness in the SISIP plan. My matrix is unofficial, but here are some statistics that became evident, assuming multiple limb loss. Only 10 per cent of privates would receive anything from SISIP. Any private that is married with children would receive nothing. An unmarried private with 10 years' service would receive approximately $140 per month for three years. I fail to see the logic in that difference.
How does this provide income security and how is this compensation for the loss sustained? At the opposite end of the spectrum, most Lieutenant-Colonels — 92 per cent by my calculation — would receive Accidental Dismemberment Benefit ranging from $852 to $1,500 a month for three years. This illustrates a skewed formula for the determination of benefits. Those soldiers likely to be injured receive a pittance compared with those in leadership positions.
The third point I raised was that changes to accidental dismemberment benefits should be made retroactive to the inception of the plan, so that soldiers receiving reduced or no benefits should be compensated.
These are just three of the seven issues that I raised in my grievance that have not been addressed. To my knowledge, they have not even been discussed. There has been much vacillation by those who reviewed my grievance over points of law and definitions. The issue remains tangible indemnity for the loss that is applied equally across the forces.
Subsequent to my grievance submission, I determined other factors that need to be considered. Many of the benefits and allowances offered to soldiers model what has been negotiated and awarded to the public sector; therefore, I looked at the public sector's equivalent to SISIP, the Public Service Management Insurance Plan, PSMIP. The PSMIP is also a Treasury Board-supported plan. There are significant differences between the two plans and I will highlight the critical ones.
Elective accidental death and dismemberment, or AD&D, and LTD insurance are two separate entities under PSMIP. Under SISIP, ADB and LTD are the same. PSMIP offers a comprehensive benefit plan with predetermined amounts of coverage, including lump sum accidental dismemberment compensation up to $250,000. SISIP does not. Premiums cost less under PSMIP than they do under SISIP, yet both are Treasury Board Supported Plans.
I compared the costs of PSMIP and SISIP. The taxpayer subsidizes both plans, with 85 per cent of the premiums being covered by the Government of Canada. The member in both plans is responsible for the remaining 15 per cent. Under PSMIP, units of AD&D are purchased in units of $25,000 to a maximum of 10 units or $250,000. This costs the member 27.5 cents per unit, or $2.75 a month for maximum coverage. Long-term disability is separate and the employee is again responsible for 15 per cent, which is factored at 11 cents per thousand dollars of insured salary. For example, a public servant making $5,000 a month, with maximum AD&D and LTD coverage, would pay about $3.30 for that coverage.
Under SISIP, LTD and ADB are the same. For some reason, rates are higher than the public sector and the payment is mandatory. The soldier pays $2.09 per $1,000 of insured salary; the public servant is paying only 11 cents. The soldier making a salary of $5,000 a month — the same as the public servant — would be paying in the area of $10.45 a month for the LTD/ADB combination. The soldier is paying three times as much and receiving far fewer benefits. This is wrong and shameful. Soldiers should have at least the equivalent to, if not more than, the public sector, considering their line of work.
The next issue is what SISIP does not tell you regarding ADB. There is an undisclosed plan within SISIP called the General Officer's Insurance Plan, GOIP. It mirrors in many ways the public sector executive plan, the members of Parliament plan and the judges' plan. It offers lump sum compensation of $250,000 for loss of limb, which is paid entirely by the taxpayer. This is where the moral and ethical fabric of the senior leadership is challenged. This secret plan is unacceptable. GOIP is wrong in its present format. It is a double standard. It violates the age-old principle of the military commanders looking after their men first and then themselves.
They have taken something more important and fundamental than just an insurance policy perk. They have shaken the trust of their subordinates and have degraded the leadership ethos. This is a question of ethical conduct that has a direct impact on the morale of the Canadian Forces and challenges the integrity of the generals.
As an aside, I find it difficult to say that because I have utmost respect for our senior leadership. I firmly believe that they are not necessarily aware of all the nuances in GOIP. If they were aware of it, our faith would be completely shattered.
The next issue considers compensation. ADB is a form of income security and indemnity against loss of income. Compensation is a form of recognition for services provided and, in the case of loss of limb, it is a ``thank you'' for your sacrifice.
However, there is something missing for which I think that ADB should be the mechanism. There should be compensation for lost potential, be it earnings or pensionable earnings. Additionally, there are contractual issues that have not yet, but should be, discussed, as this would parallel the private and public plans. Tangible lump sum compensation would offset — not replace — loss of potential earnings. As it stands currently in the Canadian Forces, there is no compensation for lost potential even though it appears ADB is supposed to provide it.
All soldiers have a contract within the Canadian Forces. There are basic, intermediate and indefinite period of service contracts, called BE, IE and IPS. After completion of IE, or 20 years of service, a soldier is entitled to a defined pension. IPS is in essence tenure and takes you to the compulsory pension age of 55. A soldier is penalized if the IPS contract is broken by leaving the military before completing the twenty-seventh year. This is a well-known condition of service.
I was on IPS. I was good until 55 years of age. I had tenure. When I was medically discharged, I received a military pension equivalent to the number of years served and not a penny more. I would have received the same amount had I retired uninjured. There was no compensation for my contract being severed. All I got from my employer for being hurt on the job was my pink slip and six months' notice.
It is worth mentioning the damage that SISIP ADB, if not overhauled, will cause the Canadian Forces. In the profession of arms, soldiers rely upon one another. It is very much a ``band of brothers.'' When things get tough, the last thing that should be going through the soldier's mind before he enters that cave in Afghanistan or moves in on an enemy position, is any hesitation — for even a split second — is concern about life and limb. Any delay could cause injure or death to himself or the band of brothers. All soldiers must know unequivocally that they will be looked after beyond a shadow of a doubt. Unfortunately, that doubt now exists and is growing.
I would like to close this presentation with a few observations stemming from what I have presented here today. SISIP has a shortcoming in the seldom-used accidental dismemberment portion. It has been determined that ADB is a benefit that was intended to provide income security and indemnity against loss of income from accidental dismemberment. As it presently stands, ADB does not provide compensation based on injury. Rather, it applies an income threshold or means formula for that. By the nature of the injury, most soldiers will be precluded from receiving any measurable compensation from their employer. The Canadian Forces has an obligation to provide some form of tangible compensation for losses sustained and for the termination of employment contracts.
To provide little or no compensation in the event of life-altering and career-ending injury is an abrogation of the military's responsibility to the men and women in uniform proudly serving Canada. Nothing should be too good for our soldiers.
I believe that failure to correct the shortcomings within SISIP Accidental Dismemberment Benefit will have a negative effect on our military. It will challenge senior leadership to correct a double standard and lead by example. It will challenge the moral and ethical fabric of the Canadian Forces by raising unnecessary doubts about the value of the soldier. It will dampen enthusiasm among soldiers to perform their best when their country, their leaders and their buddies expect it. It will have a degrading effect on recruiting and retention. It will be an embarrassment and a cancer within for years to come.
SISIP ADB needs to parallel or mirror other similar plans such as the PSIMP. Providing measurable compensation for a soldier's loss would be deemed an acceptable consequence for the seriousness of the actions that soldiers undertake. The lack of compensation for loss of limb is a travesty.
I feel wronged by not being tangibly compensated by the Canadian Forces for the injury that I sustained in the performance of my duties. I also feel the pain and disappointment of those who have been previously denied or received reduced benefits from SISIP. I have never felt so compelled in my life to change something that in my opinion is so blatantly wrong. It is ultimately the responsibility of the Generals who administer and manage the plan to recommend changes. Anything less is an abrogation of their responsibility.
This is not an issue dredged up from the past. This has current and future implications — especially in light of the world situation today. If soldiers are sent into harm's way next month, tomorrow or next year, they and their families must know that they will be fully compensated if the unthinkable happens. We must remember that the most important asset in the Canadian Force's inventory is the soldier himself.
I feel tremendous heartbreak toward the military to which I proudly gave 23 years of my life. The extreme disappointment I felt when I realized that I would not be compensated for career-ending injuries was made worse when I discovered that the very officers who sent me into harm's way would have been adequately compensated had they been similarly injured.
I challenge the senior leadership to make amends for past shortcomings, rectify the situation, and demonstrate to the rank and file clear leadership by demanding and implementing appropriate compensation in the event of dismemberment. Nothing less than a lump sum compensation package recognizing the loss of things that you all take for granted would be acceptable. This is what is needed and that is what I am seeking to have implemented.
The Chairman: On behalf of the committee I wish to thank you for your presentation and for taking the time to appear before us today.
I would like to turn immediately to the deputy chair of our committee, Senator Joseph Day from New Brunswick, to lead off the questioning.
Senator Day: Mr. Chairman, before beginning, I believe it important that I declare my sympathetic interest and support for Major Henwood. I have known him for some time and I had been involved in supporting his case. I have already expressed that view to members of our committee but, for our audience and for the viewing public at home and for the integrity of our committee, it is important that I declare that sympathetic interest.
I thank you, Major Henwood, for your leadership. I know this is not an easy situation for you, especially as you have described your long-term commitment and sympathy for the Armed Forces and for the men and women with whom you have worked and who have worked for you. I know that what you are doing is more for the people in the Armed Forces than it is for yourself and I commend you for that.
Major, you indicated that you had filed a grievance. Presumably, that is a normal first step in this process for the Armed Forces. You said you filed the grievance initially with the army and then with the Chief of Defence Staff. What is the status of that grievance at the present time?
Mr. Henwood: I filed an initial redress grievance in 1997 that was stopped at the Chief of Land Staff level, the commander of the army, who said he could not support my recommendation for change. It took a year to get that answer.
As I said in my text, I felt that the Commander of the Army had no jurisdiction or final jurisdiction over a Canadian Forces plan. I resubmitted the grievance to the next level, as was my right in the grievance process, to the Chief of Defence Staff. It has remained there since.
In 2000, the grievance process changed in NDHQ. Grievances that have financial implications — and clearly this does — are forwarded to a new committee called the Canadian Forces Grievance Board. That board held my file for approximately two years.
That board can only assess a grievance from a legal aspect and provide recommendations to the Chief of Defence Staff for him to make a final decision. The grievance board could not see the forest for the trees. They recommended that my grievance not be supported. That recommendation went back to the Chief of Defence Staff in July 2002. That is where it remains.
Senator Day: Have you heard from the Chief of Defence Staff?
Mr. Henwood: I asked to speak with the Chief of Defence Staff to explain, much as I have explained to you, the logic, the shortcomings, the disappointment. My request was denied.
Senator Day: You have not received a final reply yet from the Chief of Defence Staff? Is that correct?
Mr. Henwood: That is correct.
Senator Day: Is there another process within the Armed Forces, the ombudsman?
Mr. Henwood: The ombudsman's office is in a difficult position because — and I only speak from what I have learned; I am not an expert in the area — they cannot discuss matters that the grievance board is reviewing. They can only review the process itself. I believe they are looking at the process in terms of timelines — why it takes so long to get answers.
Senator Day: Have you heard from the ombudsman with respect to the fact that your grievance has been outstanding now for four or five years with no final decision?
Mr. Henwood: Absolutely. They sent an investigator to interview me in August, within about a month and one-half of my raising concerns to them. Other than today and a presentation to SCONDVA six years ago, that is the only opportunity I have had to tell the story.
Senator Day: You have had no other opportunity to explain this to any other group or organization within the Department of National Defence?
Mr. Henwood: No, sir.
Senator Day: Are you aware of any studies that the Department of National Defence might be doing in relation to the several points you have raised?
Mr. Henwood: The larger umbrella is called ``The Care of the Injured.'' It includes the McLellan report in 1997, the SCONDVA report of 1998, and another report that talked in general terms on the care of the injured for which SISIP was identified as a point, but not further enunciated.
Senator Day: You have referred a couple of times to SCONDVA. That is the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veteran Affairs; is that correct?
Mr. Henwood: That is correct.
The Chairman: Can we remember that not everyone is fully conversant with the acronyms that we use so frequently? If you can, try to spell out the name of the organization rather than using the acronym, please.
Senator Day: Major, your accident occurred in 1995 in Croatia?
Mr. Henwood: Yes, sir.
Senator Day: If you had been a full colonel at that time, would your compensation have been different?
Mr. Henwood: From what I have learned, I believe so, yes.
Senator Day: You would have received a lump sum payment for the loss of your two legs?
Mr. Henwood: Yes.
Senator Day: However, because you were a major — two ranks below colonel — you received nothing?
Mr. Henwood: Correct. Had I not been married and had fewer years of service, I may have received something from SISIP under their Accidental Dismemberment Benefit, but I could not tell you what that amount is. Nor could SISIP. Because I had 22 years of pensionable service, was married and had children, I was precluded.
Senator Day: I hope we can use the SISIP acronym now, because I have difficulty with the words.
The Chairman: It stands for Service Income Security Insurance Plan.
Senator Day: Thank you.
If you had not been married and if you had been entitled to some accidental dismemberment benefit from SISIP, would it have been a lump sum?
Mr. Henwood: No. It would have been an amount payable for 36 months.
Senator Day: If you had been a full colonel, it would have been a lump sum?
Mr. Henwood: Correct.
Senator Day: If you had been a civilian employee of National Defence and the same injury occurred to you at the same time, would you have been entitled to a lump sum payment?
Mr. Henwood: I am not conversant necessarily with how the public sector works, except for what I have researched and read, but I suspect I would be at a disadvantage compared to a civilian counterpart.
Senator Day: Your understanding, from the material you have given us, is that there is a lump sum payment to civilians for accidental dismemberment?
Mr. Henwood: Yes.
Senator Day: That is assuming they have taken out that insurance.
Mr. Henwood: It is elective.
Senator Day: Did you have the opportunity to take out an elective dismemberment insurance plan?
Mr. Henwood: There is no such provision in SISIP.
Senator Day: You refer a number of times to morale and that there is growing doubt within the Armed Forces that they will be properly cared for. Can you elaborate on that?
Mr. Henwood: None of the serving soldiers with whom I have spoken — and there have been many across the country — are fully aware of what the Service Income Security Insurance Plan provides them. When I lay the numbers out on the table for them, they are astounded. Invariably, they go back and ask questions of their SISIP advisers to see if this is true or not.
Many civilians to whom I have explained this are flabbergasted. Retired soldiers shake their heads. Yes, this is something they are not aware of. It is not fully explained. As they become more aware, the disappointment will increase.
Senator Day: You indicated that you had a contract with the Armed Forces to serve until age 55. You agreed to continue to do that.
Mr. Henwood: Yes. I signed.
Senator Day: The armed forces were happy, as were you.
Mr. Henwood: Absolutely.
Senator Day: Then you were injured. The Armed Forces decided to release you as a result of that injury.
Mr. Henwood: Correct.
Senator Day: The retirement pension portion that you have been paying into is based on, presumably, your best five years of pensionable time. Is that correct?
Mr. Henwood: That is close. I am not a Canadian Forces superannuation expert, so this is all layman terms. For every year served, your pension increases by 2 per cent. It does not kick in until you have 20 years of service, and then it is a defined plan. You know what 40 per cent of your income is right now, and you can determine what your pension would be.
When I was injured, the day I was released was the day that calculation stopped, even though I had a contract that took me to age 55. This was a binding contract with some penalty clauses built in until, in my case, age 48.
Senator Day: At the time of your release, what was the major's salary?
Mr. Henwood: Sixty thousand dollars per year.
Senator Day: Do you know, approximately, what you would be making as an annual salary today if you were still in the Armed Forces as a major?
Mr. Henwood: I believe it is around $84,000.
Senator Day: Between $60,000 and $80,000. What compensation, if any, are you receiving for that premature termination of your contractual relationship with the Armed Forces?
Mr. Henwood: Nothing.
Senator Day: Could you elaborate or explain to us a little about the impact this injury and the premature termination of your contractual relationship with the Armed Forces has had on you and your family?
Mr. Henwood: I would be very remiss if I did not say this had a substantial impact. The army was my chosen career. I joined it voluntarily. I went to military college and served our country with great pride. I served overseas for many years in Germany, and I worked with desperate refugees in Croatia. I thanked God every day that I was a Canadian.
It has ruined my life in many ways. First, my chosen career, my pride as a soldier, was taken away from me. I will not say without so much as a thanks, but a pat on the back is one thing, tangible compensation is another. I have been hurt that way.
My family is not the same, nor do I think anyone could even hope that one's family would be the same after going through a very serious car accident or some sort of debilitating injury that leaves a person permanently disabled. I am not the same person I was before I was injured. I am fortunate my wife was able to fall in love with the same guy twice because I think many studies have shown that in cases of tragedy in a family, the marriage falls apart. Mine has not. I am lucky for that.
My wife is being counselled and supported for elements of post-traumatic stress disorder, as am I. My middle son has exhibited some serious difficulties with what has happened to me, and only now, after seven years, are we beginning to break through that shell and getting him the help he needs.
This is not just a soldier that got blown up. This is an individual, a family that has forever changed.
Senator Day: You have indicated that because you were not qualified for SISIP, they would not give you any support. Presumably, the Armed Forces are giving you that support to help you through this post-traumatic stress syndrome that you and your family have, quite understandably, been suffering?
Mr. Henwood: No, sir.
Senator Day: They are not?
Mr. Henwood: No.
Senator Day: Are you paying for that yourself?
Mr. Henwood: Yes.
Senator Day: Have you made any requests for that from the Armed Forces?
Mr. Henwood: There is no mechanism. Veterans Affairs, on the other hand, cover my costs, as I am one of their clients. I am looked after. We are gingerly exploring if Veterans Affairs can extend the umbrella of support to immediate family members, but that is still early in the game.
Senator Day: It has been seven years since this accident took place.
Mr. Henwood: The accident may have taken place seven years ago, but I live with it every day, as does my family. It is very much a current affair for those around me that work with me and know me and my family.
Senator Day: It has been seven years, and the Armed Forces have not given you any support from that point of view. In other words, Veterans Affairs have not told you that your wife and your children, who, obviously, needed some help as well, would be covered under their support umbrella?
Mr. Henwood: They did not, but in all fairness to Veterans Affairs, I did not ask them. I assumed it was my own responsibility.
Senator Day: You knew that SISIP and the Armed Forces were not going to support you?
Mr. Henwood: I did not bother asking, correct.
The Chairman: Before I turn to Senator Kenny, I wonder, Major Henwood, if you could confirm for me some dates? The accidents happened on September 27, 1995. You were released from the Armed Forces on what day or in what year?
Mr. Henwood: April 1, 1998.
The Chairman: I noticed that when you came in that you appeared to move with considerable dexterity and without obvious discomfort. Were you offered an opportunity to stay on, or were you told that your career was over?
Mr. Henwood: I was offered informally an opportunity to stay, which I declined because I would not be able to live with myself for accepting an offer of employment when soldiers were being released for far less injuries than mine. I would not be able to look at my colleagues or myself when the fellow sitting next to me was going to be released because of a damaged knee or poor eyesight, and here is a guy with no legs and he is still in. It did not work. I declined therefore. The rules would have been bent to accommodate me. I did not want the rules bent.
The Chairman: Do you know what the policy of the Armed Forces is with respect to release of an injured member or, alternatively, an offer of continuing employment?
Mr. Henwood: I am not fully conversant on offers because I do not believe they happen, but when you are injured, depending on the seriousness of the injury, you will go before what is called a Career Medical Review Board, CMRB. That board will review your medical files and they will make a determination as to your fitness to serve. After medical examinations and whatnot, they will eventually send you a form that outlines, basically, all skill sets that are required in your current trade. You check those that you can and those that you can no longer perform. For example, one that we have is the ability to do two times 10 kilometres in two-hour sessions back-to-back on consecutive days — you do 10 kilometres one day within two hours and then the same thing the next day. Was I able to perform that duty? No. They evaluate all the negative responses to the questions and if you have too many, then you are deemed no longer fit for service. The CMR will make a ruling, and you are a given a notice of intent of release, which might be six or seven months, to allow you to start processing the necessary paperwork.
Senator Kenny: Major, it is a difficult morning hearing your story. Living it must have been much worse. If I have heard you correctly — and please tell me if I missed something — you are describing a bad plan to us. You are describing poor information about it. You are describing long waits. You are describing lack of respect and support. You are describing multiple negative impacts. You are describing irrelevant conditions like rank, married state or family. You are describing unfair treatment between different ranks within the armed services.
Are there major areas I have missed?
Mr. Henwood: I think you have hit them all pretty well.
The word ``compensation'' has to be factored in here. Compensation comes in many forms, one being financial compensation. Compensation, as I mentioned earlier, is also recognition. I think that properly compensating someone for a loss would go a long way toward recognizing the loss. ``Look at what has happened to you. We cannot bring back your legs or restore your health, but we can ease you back into civilian society. We can bridge that financial gap or that loss. We cannot replace fully to 100 per cent any lost potential because we do not know what it would be. However, we can ease the pain by compensation.''
Two years ago, I wrote an article for a magazine in which I coined what I called the ``3C's'' — compensation and compassion lead to closure. For me, I would like nothing better than to put the events of September 1995 behind me, turn a leaf in my new life and move on. However, I keep being drawn and pulled back into this situation with SISIP, not only for myself but for the handful of soldiers — we are not many — who have suffered injuries like mine. The question is what they are saying to their friends, what they are saying at the Legion. In our country, where the military is a volunteer force, we do not need negativities floating around outside denigrating and drawing down the professionalism of the military. I feel this unknowing, the pain, the desolation, these desperate straits — that these guys do not know they are in. They will not speak up. They do not know who to speak to.
The worst thing that could have happened to the Canadian Forces was for me to be hurt at my rank with my experience. I feel strongly that I am the voice of those who, for whatever reason, will not speak up.
Compensation and compassion go hand-in-hand. They lead to closure, so that the military can close its books, the injured soldiers can then close their books, and life can go on. Until we put closure to this, it is like a festering wound.
Senator Kenny: Before I get to my main line of questioning, I have a small point about which I am not clear. Does the Canadian Forces recognize someone who is wounded by way of some device — a medal or something — which a soldier would wear on his or her uniform that indicates that they were wounded at some point?
Mr. Henwood: Do you want to hear the answer?
Senator Kenny: I do. I may not like it, but I want to hear it.
Mr. Henwood: Yes. There is recognition. Not all wounded soldiers are released from the forces, only those who can no longer perform their duties. In the Afghanistan friendly fire situation, four were killed, eight injured. Of the eight, one may be released; seven have returned to duty, bearing scars. Those soldiers will wear on their uniform a wound stripe. It is a gold bar about one and one-half inches long worn on the sleeve of their uniform. They will probably wear it with pride. It is a war story. It is something you earn the hard way.
After I was injured, I inquired about the wound stripe. I thought maybe I should be entitled to it. I was told that no such device existed. I said, ``Okay.'' I was down at the tailor shop in Base Gagetown getting some uniforms tidied up and I noticed a badge I had not seen before on a sleeve of one of the uniforms hanging in the rack where the seamstresses had done their work. I inquired what that one and one-half inch long gold bar was on the sleeve of the uniform. The seamstress told me that it is the wound stripe. I said, ``I was told they did not exist.'' She said, ``Oh, yes.'' I said, ``Would you present me with my wound stripe?'' She did.
Senator Day: The seamstress did?
Mr. Henwood: Yes.
The commander of the army at the time, General Baril, was certainly impressed with my determination and recovery. I worked hard at walking. The comment was made that I appeared to be pretty complete. I worked hard at that. I had year-long therapy in hospital as an outpatient learning how to walk again. I am challenged by stairs and ice; on flat surfaces, I am okay.
General Baril was impressed. I have utmost respect for that gentleman. He decided that I met the criteria to receive the land forces commander or the army commander's commendation for my determination in my recovery. I was awarded a silver bar that I wear on my mess kit in recognition of that. For the general rank and file, if you are injured you get a wound stripe. If you are me, you get the seamstress to give it to you she can then put it on your uniform.
Senator Kenny: You have made a compelling case about some form of compensation. We will hear further witnesses later today who will outline the differences that you have been describing to us.
I would be interested to have you take the committee through your experience from the day you started driving in that Jeep and got injured. Walk us through what happened to you from the point of injury: who you met first, how you were treated, where were you taken, what you went through in terms of hospitalization and rehabilitation so that you could come back. What sort of support did you receive from the Canadian Forces or the Department of Veterans Affairs — leaving aside the money part that you have been discussing now? I presume you started off in the morning, and then, kaboom — something happened. Take it from there.
Mr. Henwood: I do not recall that day after two o'clock in the afternoon. I was a team leader of 12 military observers in a region of sector north in Croatia — in and around the area of the City of Karlovac. Part of our territory was the rebel-held region of Krajinas , which the Croatian army had retaken by force about a month previously. I was leading a patrol that day. We did not have an interpreter. There were three of us — a British major, a Dutch major and myself, a Canadian major. I was a passenger in the front seat of a Toyota Forerunner and we were patrolling, driving around, looking for military activity. We found it.
We decided that we should warn some refugees who would have been at risk had they encountered these warring parties. We would tell them go hide because they would be killed if they were found. The road we chose was a bad road; it was mined. I was hurt.
Because we were not with a Canadian battalion but working for the UN, there was no helicopter Medivac. The British officer who, in essence, saved my life, Major Toby Bridge, was able to transport me to a Croatian hospital where I was given some blood, a tetanus shot and I was removed to an American medical facility in Zagreb, Croatia. My injuries were treated, the legs were removed, my face was patched up and other critical injures were attended to. That hospital could not handle blast and the consequences of blast.
Senator Kenny: What is ``blast''?
Mr. Henwood: ``Blast'' refers to explosion.
Senator Kenny: What are the consequences of that?
Mr. Henwood: I believe the consequences include potential swelling on the brain. My head was huge when I left Croatia. The effects of blast caused swelling and, I am not a medical doctor, and though they were not sure of the consequences, they knew they could not treat me there.
I was airlifted by an American medical Nightingale aircraft — a Boeing 737 hospital plane — to Ramstein, Germany, to the same hospital that cared for the Canadian soldiers who were injured in Afghanistan. I remained at that intensive care hospital for about 10 days. My wife was in direct contact with Zagreb at that time. When I left Zagreb, she was then handed off to a Canadian liaison officer in Germany. When it was determined that I would not die, she then joined me in Germany.
Senator Kenny: If I could interrupt. Two or three weeks have elapsed at this stage; is that correct?
Mr. Henwood: Five or six days have elapsed.
Senator Kenny: Have you seen a Canadian yet?
Mr. Henwood: I do not know. I was not awake.
Senator Kenny: Do you not remember?
Mr. Henwood: No.
Senator Kenny: As you relate these incidents, would you tell us when you first encountered Canadians and first felt that you were getting some support or some involvement of Canadians?
Mr. Henwood: When my wife showed up, a Canadian military officer accompanied her. I do not know his name. He was posted in Germany somewhere.
Senator Kenny: Did someone fly your wife over? Did Canada fly your wife to Germany?
Mr. Henwood: Absolutely.
Senator Kenny: Someone met your wife and told her about the problem; is that correct?
Mr. Henwood: When I was first hurt, one of the padres on the base raced over to the house and informed my wife that he was there alone because he did not have a chance to grab anyone else as CNN was releasing the news without notification of next of kin. He felt that she should be informed immediately. Her first notification was from a chaplain at the base.
The phone calls and networking then took place. She was receiving calls from Zagreb. The first call told her that I had a broken leg. The next call was worse. The subsequent calls were not good news.
However, that was early on. As with anything, as the information develops, it becomes more concrete and accurate. My wife did not come to Germany until, in her mind, she was certain I was not going to die. The Canadian Forces arranged for her transportation to Germany and looked after her. She had someone with her all the time. The American hospital also provided a social worker. Whenever she was in the hospital, there was someone with her.
After about 10 days, I was anxious to return to Canada to be under our own care. Arrangements were made to have me airlifted back to Ottawa where I became a patient at the National Defence Medical Centre for about a month. In that month, I saw numerous military and civilian specialists for my eye, my ear, my hands, the skin grafts and other work on my legs, fixing broken bones, re-pinning wrists and things like that. A significant amount of work was done in that first month in Ottawa. During that period of time, I met with, at my request, a SISIP representative who could not tell me anything. I met with a legion specialist in arranging medical pensions. They took some information.
I must admit that the first official piece of correspondence that I received, in a letter format was from Cliff Chadderton of the War Amps, saying, ``Don't worry. Here is our best guess of what sort of financial situation you will be in for the rest of your life, because you will be out of a job.'' I did not receive a letter like that from the Canadian Forces. The only letter I have on file is from Mr. Chadderton from the War Amps.
I met with the legion and SISIP and I had a letter from the War Amps. I had numerous military visitors, colleagues and friends, out of sympathy and support. I had a few official visits, which were very welcome and, for the most part, were sincere and honest.
I was treated well medically; there is no doubt. I felt I my family was well treated. My wife was now commuting at government expense New Brunswick to Ottawa. Every second trip, she brought the kids so they remembered who their dad was, even though I was not quite the same. The kids were scared. We developed a nice relationship with then- Governor General Roméo LeBlanc and his lovely wife. They were very caring of my wife and my kids. I was just the guy in hospital on morphine. I was recovering.
Around the middle of November, almost two months after being injured, I was being fitted for artificial legs — at least one leg — in an attempt to get my back into a vertical position and get the gyros and the mind working again, instead of being horizontal.
The rehabilitation phase could be done in any hospital, so I requested to be moved closer to my hometown of Fredericton, New Brunswick. I was stationed in Base Gagetown. At that stage, I was then handed off to a civilian hospital under the care of civilian doctors, which lasted for another three months. I was released from hospital at the end of February 1996. I walked out under my own power, which was one of my goals. I went home and began a year- long out-patient convalescence, for which the military provided drivers and vehicles to get me to all my specialist appointments.
Since you opened the lid on Pandora's box, I was being looked after. What you have heard is ``I.'' The other half of the story is the family. There was little or no offer of support by the system for my wife and children. However, individuals bent over backwards to bend the rules to arrange this or do that. We had to identify a need and then they would try to cater to that need. It was not the other way around with the system saying, ``Here is what we can provide for you, what do you need?''
It became very demeaning, and my wife would not keep going to the trough looking for help. When my wife was driving to the hospital, we were paying for the hospital parking. We felt that was a legitimate expense that perhaps should be covered; it was not. I had to submit a redressive grievance, such as the one I have done here, to recapture legitimate costs that my family and I incurred while I was hospitalized. Afterward, we settled those accounts, but it showed me that the mechanism was not in place to provide those services up front. Had I been mentally injured, I do not know what we would have done. We paid for parking at the hospital. At some point my wife took the van off the road and racked it up on her way to visit me at the hospital. It was well known that that happened, but the military did not offer to provide transportation to relieve her of that responsibility completely.
That is the ``compassion'' component of the three Cs that I mentioned. That is one of the missing elements. I like to believe that matters have improved. I believe the military has learned some hard lessons about looking after its injured. There are now mechanisms in place. There are family support centres on bases that are very proactive. There is a 1-800 number jointly staffed in Ottawa that members and their families can call for guidance and support, so things have improved.
I was discharged and became an outpatient in the rehabilitation phase. When the dust settled, I knew that I would be released from the military. What types of mechanisms were in place to sustain my family and me following my release?
I began to inquire into my civilian insurance plans for which, of course, the premiums were waived while I was hospitalised. However, because I was injured in a near-war situation there was no compensation coming from there. I realized that the outlook was not good with regard to SISIP. I had no idea what my disability pension from Veterans Affairs pension would be. I had an idea of what my army pension would be. While the numbers were okay, they did not add up, therefore I asked what is wrong with SISIP.
In late December 1996 and in January 1997, I wrote a paper entitled ``Care of the Injured,'' which I submitted to General Ross, commander of Gagetown at the time, who circulated it widely at the senior level. I believe that some of these changes may have percolated out of that.
There were still many unknowns. Around May of 1997, after negotiations and discussions by letters and phone calls with Maritime Life, which is the underwriter for the SISIP plan, I was realized that there was nothing coming from there. That is when I decided that I had to go to the next step of a formal challenge.
That is how we got here today.
Senator Kenny: I am looking forward to the rest of these hearings because your work in drawing this to our attention and to the public's attention gives us an opportunity to assist you and others in this regard.
The Chairman: You mentioned the excellent treatment you received at the National Defence Medical Centre. Does that facility still exist?
Mr. Henwood: No, sir. I believe they were closing the wards down around me. In 1995, budgets were tight and I believe NDMC was closing down.
The Chairman: As I understand, it was designed to treat members of the Armed Forces and others.
Mr. Henwood: That is correct.
The Chairman: Where would you be treated if you were injured today, if not at the National Defence Medical Centre?
Mr. Henwood: I presume that one would go to a nearby qualified medical facility.
The Chairman: Were there any Canadian doctors serving with you in Croatia? Do you know whether you saw any?
Mr. Henwood: No. I was not with the foreign battalions. I was seconded to the UN and working directly for them. A medical facility out of Dayton, Ohio was their MASH unit providing coverage for UN staff. I was seen by the UN front-line doctors, who happened to be American doctors, and fortunately so because they were well experienced in war-related injures. Many people have commented that the surgical procedures they performed on me immediately after arrival were instrumental in my regaining the ability to walk and such things.
Senator Atkins: Can you briefly take us through the grievance process?
Mr. Henwood: Yes. It may have changed slightly, but if a soldier believes that he has a grievance that cannot be resolved by his immediate supervisor, the official route is to submit to your commanding officer a redress of grievance wherein you outline what you are appealing. If your commanding officer has the power to make a judgment, he can do so.
For example, if a driver is no longer allowed to drive a tank because someone else was given that job, and he thinks he is the most qualified, he could challenge that decision. The commanding officer could decide to put him back in as a driver. That is something the commanding officer could resolve at his level.
If the commanding officer cannot resolve the issue, it must go to the next level of command, which would be the base commander. If the base commander cannot resolve the matter, he can offer his comments and staff it to the next level, which is area commander.
I am speaking only for the army now. I am not sure how the air force or navy works.
The issue eventually gets to the level where a decision is rendered.
Senator Atkins: With an explanation?
Mr. Henwood: I believe it is with an explanation.
If you do not like the decision, you may opt to appeal to the next level above.
Submitting a redress of grievance is not done lightly. These are considered very serious and are a measure of last resort. The grievance process proceeds, and eventually you get to where you can go no further. There are timelines involved. A response must be provided within 30 days of receipt of a grievance, or a letter stating that the grievance has been received and that a response will be provided in due course.
The grievance I submitted in May of 1997 took a year to get to the commander of the army level. The commander said he did not think I had been hard done by, because he reviewed the policy as written, and I got exactly what the policy said. That is why I believe that the policy is wrong. The commander said that according to the policy I had not been hard done by, case closed.
I did not accept that decision so I decided to submit the issue to the Chief of Defence Staff, the commander's boss, which I did in 1998. Exchange and disclosure of information was all done by letter. As long as communications are flowing, soldiers think that something will happen.
Last summer, the grievance board, working on behalf of the Chief of Defence Staff, having looked at the facts on the table, recommended that my grievance not be supported because I got exactly what the plan provided for. The board members did not understand that I was challenging not what I received but the plan itself, which has a fundamental flaw.
It is hard to say what the timelines are when they have to call in specialists to render their decision. However, the process has been going on for five and one-half years.
The Chairman: Did I understand you to say that the process is now terminated because the board acting on behalf of the CDS rendered a decision last summer?
Mr. Henwood: It is in the CDS's hands to make the final decision. The Canadian Forces Grievance Board has made a recommendation that the grievance not be supported.
The Chairman: That decision by the CDS has not yet been rendered, to your knowledge?
Mr. Henwood: No, sir.
Senator Atkins: Therefore, they went by the book?
Mr. Henwood: Absolutely. Some of these soldiers might have grade 10, 11, 12 education; some might have post- secondary. I have a university degree. I put in what I thought was a well-constructed, well-laid-out issue. I think the one I wrote was pretty good. In response to that 10-page grievance, I received a 32-page document staffed by lawyers citing Jones v. Smith, X v. Y. — every legal citing in the response supported a negative recommendation. I found it hard to believe that there were no positive recommendations given for the Chief of Defence Staff to weigh the scales of justice. Only one recommendation was given, not an option of A or B, just a ``no.''
Senator Atkins: Would you think that the CDS has the power to call for a review of the SISIP?
Mr. Henwood: I would have thought up until about a month ago that the Chief of Defence Staff was the final authority, and that would be done with. However, on the SISIP Web site — and even on the DND Web site — they made a statement about things that have been stated in the media — ``secret little plans for the generals'' and things like that — and said that the truth is that the Chief of Defence Staff has no authority, that all authority rests with Treasury Board. It leads me to wonder, why has my grievance been mired in the Chief of Defence Staff's office when he has no governance over the plan. By their own admission, Treasury Board has governance. Up until a month ago, I would have said Chief of Defence Staff. Now, I do not know.
Senator Atkins: If Treasury Board has the authority, it would be a request from the minister, would it?
Mr. Henwood: Sir, I do not know.
Senator Atkins: How many other people who served in the Forces are in your situation?
Mr. Henwood: I cannot tell you since the inception of SISIP, but I can tell you those who have been wounded in action or near war-like action since 1992, probably number less than 12.
Senator Atkins: Thank you.
Senator Kenny: I have a brief supplementary question.
Major, you were commenting on the grievance process for Senator Atkins. Perhaps you could explain to the committee a bit about the Canadian Forces culture vis-à-vis grievance processes. You hinted at the tank driver who felt he should have had a shot at driving the tank. Then as a throw-away line, you said, but he probably would not want to do that. If you want to have a career in the Armed Forces and you submit a grievance or you participate in the grievance process, is that seen as a career-enhancing exercise? What unwritten in the culture, that civilians do not know about, that a soldier thinks about when you go through a grievance process?
Mr. Henwood: I have been out for five years now, sir. A grievance would not be viewed upon as a positive experience. You are challenging a superior's decision that he has made about you. The leadership has made a decision — for whatever reason — usually good, but sometimes the odd one falls through the cracks where a bad decision has been made. If you are caught up in that, then you can submit a grievance. However, first, you do not want to call undue attention to yourself. By doing a grievance, you would. I would not view it as something that would be taken very lightly.
A soldier who might submit a grievance or two or three could be labelled a ``whiner'' viewed in a negative light. Grievances take time to staff. They are handled carefully because a soldier has gone to the extent to put in a grievance. He realizes it may have a negative consequence, but he is hoping that the positive consequence for reversal or a change might outweigh whatever decision was made. Therefore, it is a calculated risk to put one in.
Senator Kenny: If I understand you correctly, the point you wanted to make to the committee was that the grievance response was adversarial as opposed to a finding of fact?
Mr. Henwood: I would not say that is correct. I would simply say the grievance board's investigation of my grievance was to the negative. A recommendation was that it would not be supported.
Senator Kenny: There was an assumption that you had all of the support and legal assistance you might need, and, therefore, you had put your case forward. In other words, if it was in a court of law, the assumption is each side puts forward their best arguments and someone comes to a conclusion about it?
Mr. Henwood: No, sir, a grievance is submitted by an individual with no support from anyone, unless he has someone in the barrack room who can help him write. It is done in pen and ink on a piece of paper. If it gets far enough that handwritten or typewritten grievance will be handled by a team of lawyers and demolished through legalese, as in my case. I was never offered support for preparing my grievance, legal arguments and such. That was not offered. I would have thought that a grievance board, in making a recommendation to the Chief of Defence Staff would have offered the pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses, legal decision supporting/legal decision not to support, and let the Chief of Defence Staff use the scales of justice render a decision based on all the facts. I feel my grievance had a predetermined outcome — and that was not to support.
Senator Forrestall: Would you describe to me the adequacy of the vehicle you were using for this observation work in terms of your personal protection?
I can preface it by saying that we enjoyed sitting on four or five flack jackets in the back of the armed carrier — that is how much trust we had in them. Might I ask you about your own experience?
Mr. Henwood: I go back to my comment that I was not with one of the formed battalions that had armoured vehicles and so forth. I was with the UN, and we were working in civilian-patterned SUVs. I was in a Toyota 4- Runner. You could buy one at any car dealership in town, paint it white, throw a Motorola radio in it and paint ``UN'' on the side. We had flak vests, however, for the area we were in the threat was assessed as low, so we were not even carrying them that day. There was no threat. The road we went down should not have been mined. As the investigation determined, the minefield was incorrectly marked on all the UN maps by being one kilometre south of where it was actually. During the investigation, I received a phone call when I was at NDMC from a Canadian military engineer in Croatia investigating the board of inquiry that was convened as a result of my injuries. He asked, ``Why were you joyriding around in a minefield?'' I said to the captain, ``First, you must think about what you just said, because your statement is wrong. I was not in a minefield and I certainly was not joyriding.'' He said, ``You were in minefield number 13.'' I said, ``No. There were no minefields on the road I was in. To my recollection, minefield 13 was south of where I was.'' Major Bridge, the British officer in the vehicle with me, concurred and insisted that the Canadian investigation team go out to the minefield site with GPS. They plotted it and indeed, we were within about 10 metres of where we thought we were and the minefield was incorrectly marked on the maps. Therefore, we were in minefield 13, even though all the maps said it was one kilometre south. The geographical features were virtually identical between the two areas. Whether I was in an armoured vehicle or a protected vehicle, the threat was assessed as low to nothing. It would not have made any difference. An armoured vehicle might have helped, but the UN staff — the military observers — were not equipped with that equipment. We were deemed to be as neutral as possible and armoured fighting vehicles would be seen as offensive in nature.
Senator Forrestall: You would have been using the vehicle you are using in any event or you would have been clearly away from hazardous areas?
Mr. Henwood: The road we chose should not have been mined. To follow on with your statement, the vehicle I was in was the vehicle we were issued with and using.
Senator Forrestall: If you do not know the answer to this question we can get the information elsewhere. What would happen to a reservist who had faced the same difficulty that you did?
Mr. Henwood: I would like to think that if a reservist is called up to be a military observer as I was — which they have been — and if they were injured like I was, then I would hope that they would have received the same medical treatment and care that I did, or better. The SISIP plan has a reserve portion to it. I am not conversant with the reserve terms within the Service Income Security Insurance Plan.
Senator Forrestall: You do not know if that would differ from the real outcome of your situation?
Mr. Henwood: I do not think there is a difference, but I am not 100 per cent sure.
Senator Forrestall: Can we go back to the beginning? I wish someone had told me 37 years ago, ``Forrestall, do not put your money in the Members of Parliament Retirement Plan. I would have bought Royal Bank of Canada shares and I would have been wealthy today.'' However, no one told me. You have touched upon it, but what do you have to say about the adequacy of the briefing you were given with respect to this aspect of your relationship with the Canadian Armed Forces? In hindsight, it obviously was not, but at the time did you feel satisfied with the explanations? To what degree were you competent that you would never have to face this kind of situation? I know you have addressed it, but did you pay any attention to it initially?
Mr. Henwood: That is a good question. When I was notified that I was going to Croatia for one year as a military observer, realizing there were inherent dangers, I ensured that I brought my term life insurance through the other SISIP plan up to maximum in the remotest chance that I would have been killed. I wanted to ensure that I could leave something for my family.
I never thought of — and I would submit that probably most soldiers do not — of dying or of being wounded. Why would you want to be a soldier if you were in self-destruction mode? While the thought of being killed in a foreign country had crossed my mind, I ensured that, to the best of my ability, I would leave my family as well off as possible. The wills were brought up to date and I purchased as much insurance as I could. I had flipped through the SISIP manual. There are all sorts of plans, but I did not delve into them because never did I think about losing a limb. I thought you could be killed, but it never crossed my mind that you could lose a portion of your body. However, neither SISIP nor DND provided ``in the event of death, X; in the event of dismemberment, Y; in the event of injury, not including dismemberment, Z.'' Those things were not discussed in any detail. I did not asked because I assumed that everything was fine. I assumed that I had SISIP. I wrote home to mom, ``Don't worry.''
Senator Forrestall: What about private insurance that you or your wife may have taken out?
Mr. Henwood: I own personal life insurance, not a term but a whole life insurance plan, with London Life. I had the London Life representative over to the house before I deployed and he said, ``You are not going to a war zone. Therefore, your policy will remain in effect.'' I said, ``Great'' — in case I was killed. I never asked what my coverage would be if I was going to be dismembered. When I returned, I certainly made that enquiry to London Life. In the policy that I purchased, one of the riders indicated that while hospitalized or while not able to perform my duties, premiums would be waived.'' In fact, they were waived until I declared that the premiums should no longer be waived when I got a full-time job after I got out of the military.
Senator Forrestall: Did you take that as some acceptance of what you understood that policy would provide for you? Did you take that action on the part of the company as being an act on their part?
Mr. Henwood: I got exactly what was printed. I had not read the fine print before going over.
Senator Forrestall: No one told you about it either, did they?
Mr. Henwood: No. What he did say was that ``If you were killed, you would be covered.'' That is all I wanted to hear. Had I been killed, would I have been covered? I do not know. The salesmen will tell you anything they think you want to hear. However, I felt confident that in the event of death, I would not leave my family destitute. That was the overriding criteria. I thought that if I was hurt, I would come home and everything would be the same — not realizing there are varying degrees of being hurt. That was naivety on my part, I would suggest.
Senator Forrestall: There is nothing in the process that gives the Department of National Defence a way of protecting your private insurance program, is there?
Mr. Henwood: I do not believe so.
Senator Forrestall: I do not think so either.
Mr. Henwood: That has nothing to do with the SISIP approach that I am taking. I am not sure. It is something you could probably ask the Department of National Defence. I do not know why they would want to enter into negotiations with insurance providers other than the one they already have, which is Maritime Life.
Senator Forrestall: It seems to me that they have an obligation to protect you, should you enter into harm's way by way of crossing that predetermined magical line that places you in a war zone. After all, you went voluntarily, but that part was after the fact.
Mr. Henwood: That would certainly be something that most soldiers would prefer: a kind of third-party insurance on existing insurance plans to cover them in such an event. That would certainly be a nice benefit to have. However, I was not thinking that at all or even looking at that.
Senator Forrestall: That is the basic point I wanted to communicate. You were not thinking of that because nobody bothered to discuss it with you.
Mr. Henwood: I had a personal whole life insurance policy with London Life, as a responsible husband and parent, that had nothing to do with the military, per se, with which I had a much larger term life insurance policy. That personal policy was in place for my post-career coverage and had nothing to do with the time that I was serving in the military.
Senator Forrestall: You said that there was a colourful template.
Mr. Henwood: You have it in your hand, sir.
Senator Forrestall: Did you prepare it?
Mr. Henwood: Yes. Red represents ``bad.''
Senator Forrestall: Are you an actuary?
Mr. Henwood: Red is bad and green is good; that is the bottom line.
Senator Forrestall: Thank you, Major.
The Chairman: Senator Day has a supplementary question or two.
Senator Day: My question is in respect of Senator Forrestall's questions about the income security portion of the insurance. Mr. Henwood, you are a well-educated army officer. In your 23 years of service, you had many men and women under your command reporting to you. Did you ever, during that time, sit down and explain to them that they may have some difficulty with this insurance, especially in the event of loss of a limb?
Mr. Henwood: No, sir. When I was a lieutenant with soldiers under my command, and later on when I had officers and soldiers under my command, my responsibility was to ensure that they had SISIP because it looked after everything.
Senator Day: You were always under the impression that the Canadian Armed Forces would look after those men and women — your men and women — who were your comrades putting their lives on the line for their country.
Mr. Henwood: Absolutely.
Senator Day: Are you aware of any briefings by SISIP to explain this insurance since your accident and since you became involved in the grievance process?
Mr. Henwood: I know that they added a clarification of the insurance on their Web site to try to distance themselves from various elements that I have raised under the GOIP.
I can tell you that, before any soldier deploys overseas, they go through what is called a ``Departure Assistance Group,'' DAG, where they review their medical and dental plans and ensure that their wills are brought up to date. A SISIP representative attends to ensure that they have SISIP. I cannot say whether those SISIP briefings now include the caveat ``that if you lose a leg and if you are married with three kids, you are ``hooped'' and, therefore, our advice to you would be to get a divorce so that you are a single soldier when you go.'' I do not know if they are saying that.
Senator Day: Are you aware that there are more briefings happening now and there is more information conveyed than there had been previously?
Mr. Henwood: I believe that is so.
Senator Day: When you were in Gagetown following your accident, did you attend any SISIP briefings where other people were in attendance and you were referred to?
Mr. Henwood: When soldiers decide to look at retirement, two, three or five years before they leave the military, they are advised to attend a Second Career Access Network, SCAN, seminar. At SCAN, they will tell you whom to see for help in writing a resume; they will help to ensure that your medical and dental is done before leaving the military to carry over your medical, health and dental benefits in your post-military career. Then, a SISIP representative will advise you that there is SISIP coverage after release, should you choose to purchase it or continue your term insurance. You can switch it over to coverage after release.
I went to a SCAN seminar in Gagetown and the SISIP representative was presenting his spiel to explain to the soldiers about what SISIP could do for them and the kind of coverage they could expect to receive in the event of injury or death. That representative did not know that I was in the audience. I was at the back because of the sloped stairs to access the front of the room. Strangely, he said to the people in the audience — 100 or so soldiers and their wives — ``You have all heard of Major Henwood.'' A few people nodded and elbowed me. He said, ``Let me tell you what Major Henwood will receive as a result of his injuries because I am sure you are interested in this information.'' He explained that I would receive in the area of $300,000 from SISIP from the accidental dismemberment benefit. I was thinking to myself that this was interesting because I did not think I would receive anything. After his briefing, he asked for questions and I put my hand up. I said that I was Major Henwood and that I had never given him permission to put up my pay guide or insurance plan or to tell these strangers that I would receive some form of benefit from SISIP. I told him that I had never signed such a waiver for the release of that information. I also said that I was not aware that I would be receiving any amount of benefit and that he may just have the wrong information. He said that he had been told that I would receive a certain amount of benefit. I suggested that we should talk privately at my home the next day so that he could explain how it would work and he agreed. He called me that evening and said that he had been mistaken and that I would receive nothing. I said that that information should not be told to me over the phone and that he should present himself at my home to inform my wife and me in person.
Initially, he had surprised me when he said that I would receive a benefit because I believed, after reading all the fine print and after information gleaned from the phone calls that I had made, that I would receive nothing. After that SCAN seminar I attended, I thought that maybe there was a glimmer of hope.
Subsequently, I was fortunate to meet with LCol. Bill Shultz, then G1 of the First Canadian Division in Kingston. The G1 is the administrative officer — the human resources manager — of 10,000 soldiers. I explained some of my frustrations with SISIP to Colonel Shultz and expressing the disappointment I had with the plan. He looked at me and said, ``We were just briefed two weeks ago by the SISIP officials in Ottawa. What are you complaining about? You have received $300,000.'' I said, ``No, sir, I am receiving nothing.'' Colonel Shultz then said that they must have been incorrectly briefed by SISIP. I said that I thought they had been misled. It struck me as odd that even the SISIP representatives could not figure out their own plan to their own advisers or to brief their plan to the military human resources staff. It was inconceivable that this could happen.
That served to illustrate one of the other four issues that I did not mention in my presentation — I only mentioned three of the seven requirements to satisfy my grievance. One of the four that I did not mention was to make the wording in SISIP easier to understand by both the SISIP representatives and their clients. That should be accomplished by separating the SISIP Proper, which is the cash-generating portion of SISIP, from the Treasury Board part of SISIP. Within the cash-generating portion, they should separate the coverage for after release from the military from the coverage while in uniform. As it stands now, it is all jumbled into one book. Clearly, those representatives who briefed Colonel Shultz and me had flipped to the wrong page.
Senator Day: I thought it was important for the senators to know that, because there may well be a number of Armed Forces personnel who will think you received something from this insurance program for dismemberment.
Mr. Henwood: I had not thought of that. That could be true.
Senator Day: My final question is for clarification. Are you currently working?
Mr. Henwood: I am. I was fortunate that a company called Computing Devices Canada, which is now General Dynamics Canada, went out on a limb to hire a damaged soldier. I think they recognized that legs do not preclude managerial positions and that most of the 23 years of training I had in the military resided above my shoulders and not in my feet. I have had a successful career to date with General Dynamics Canada. I have been with them for more than five years. They are a company that supports the military and has, on occasion, taken injured soldiers.
Senator Day: We commend General Dynamics Canada for their forethought and compassion.
Mr. Henwood: They have allowed me to be here today.
The Chairman: Before I ask you for any concluding remarks, Major Henwood, for my clarification, do I understand you to say that private insurance plans are of no force or effect in a war zone?
Mr. Henwood: Senator, I think you would be better to get that information from an insurance company; however, in reviewing my policy — and I suspect if you review yours — you will read in the fine print that the policy is not in effect in war conditions. I believe policies have been amended to reflect terrorist acts and acts in near-war situations precluding insurance coverage.
The Chairman: We will put that question to the experts as you suggest.
Before concluding, do you have any final remarks you would like to make?
Mr. Henwood: I have a bit of a summation, senators.
Senators, thank you again for allowing me to be here today. I do not wish to appear being overly critical or confrontational when I voice my concerns about the conduct of the senior leadership in the Canadian Forces. It is not the people, but the position in which they have been put. I was proud as a career army officer and, during my years in uniform, I had the privilege of serving under many fine generals, some of whom have come here today to be part of my support team.
I am sure they have found my comments difficult to hear.
That being said, I must also stress the existence of a double standard in the way the Canadian Forces care for their injured. One standard for the rank and file and one for senior officers goes against everything I was ever taught about military leadership, right from August 22, 1976 when I was a young officer cadet at the Royal Military College of Canada. You might be interested to know that LCol. Pat Stogran, the officer who did a magnificent job commanding our country's soldiers in Afghanistan, was a classmate of mine at RMC. He wrote an article for Veritas, the Royal Military College of Canada's alumni magazine and I would like to read you a passage from that article.
What I learned through my career as a combat leader is the importance of a leader knowing himself before he can lead others, and that the great business of a leader is to recognize the strengths of the people who serve under him and inspire them to do their very best. Soldiering is all about people, and I attribute the success that the 3PPCLI battle group has enjoyed thus far in its tour in Afghanistan to the great people I have working for me.
Since the day I rejoined 3PPCLI as the commanding officer, I have never referred to 3PPCLI as ``my battalion.'' I refer to it as ``our'' battalion. If the ownership of the battalion is vested in anyone, it belongs to the young soldiers who will serve many years in the unit. Here in Afghanistan, it has been my goal as a leader to empower all members of the battle group with the same sense of ownership in the mission, and they have risen to the challenge.
I have seen young platoon commanders leading their troops in combat air assault missions into what could have been the jaws of death, and they have done so in a thoroughly professional manner with enthusiasm and no regard for their personal welfare. I have had many section commanders lead security patrols through the minefields at the Kandahar Airfield in an effort to keep an elusive but ruthless enemy off balance. Our Strathconas have spent almost six months maintaining surveillance around our perimeter; our Sappers have manned the trenches.
Every one of our soldiers — be they gunners, combat service support personnel, or the manoeuvre elements — have contributed to the success we are enjoying today.
That was LCol. Stogran about eight months ago. Soldiers are the biggest tools in the inventory. In my mind, LCol. Stogran's letter says it all. At the RMC, the first thing we were taught is that we are all in this together. In war, soldiers live or die together. I know from experience that they will do anything for leaders they respect and trust. That is why LCol. Stogran and the soldiers under his command accomplished what they did and I believe Canadians should be proud of that.
However, as a veteran myself, I must tell you I strongly believe it is morally wrong for the people of Canada and the senior leadership of the Canadian Forces to send young men and women who wear our country's uniform into danger when we know full well that they will not be properly taken care of if harm befalls them. The fact is, as things stand now, soldiers who suffer serious wounds or injuries, as I have alluded to, are not properly taken care of. It is a national tragedy.
As a professional soldier, I believe it is my duty to voice my concerns in this regard, to make the leaders of our country aware of what needs to be done and to do what I can to help and make things better. We owe at least this to our soldiers, past, present and future. This is what I hope I have accomplished today. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Major Henwood. I know I speak on behalf of all my colleagues when I say we very much appreciate your appearance before us today.
I think it fair to say as well that we found your testimony to be compelling, moving and I am sure each of us will want to follow this matter to an ultimate and, we hope, happy conclusion for everybody.
Our next witnesses today form a panel of experts about insurance provisions in both the private and public sectors. Mr. Richard Ranger, Director of Finance, Senate of Canada, will provide information on insurance provisions for members of Parliament and public servants. Mr. Bernard Potvin is a specialist on provisions of the National Defence Insurance Plan, and Mr. David Mogg will be speaking about benefits in the private sector.
I want to thank our witnesses for attending and providing assistance in a field that is not totally familiar to us.
Mr. Richard Ranger, Director of Finance, Senate of Canada: Honourable senators, I was asked to come here this morning to tell you about the benefits that would be provided to parliamentarians if they were to suffer loss of both limbs. In the event of accidental dismemberment, a senator would be paid the benefits provided by the Public Service Management Insurance Plan. I believe you have a copy of the brochure.
The Chairman: When you say a ``senator,'' does that include a member of the House of Commons as well? You are speaking about a parliamentarian?
Mr. Ranger: Yes. The principal sum of the insurance for dismemberment is $250,000. The payments are for the loss sustained based on a schedule of amounts of insurance. These amounts have been sidelined in the document that I provided to you. In the case of loss of both hands or both feet, the entire principal sum of $250,000 would be paid out.
Mr. David Mogg, March Forth Benefits: Thank you for allowing me to be here today. It is quite an experience.
Accidental death and dismemberment benefits in the private sector are very popular. An accidental death and dismemberment benefit is really a variation of the double indemnity insurance that would be part of our life insurance policies, but it has an additional feature dealing with the loss of arms or legs.
In group insurance plans, the life insurance typically has been accompanied by an accidental death and dismemberment benefit. If you had $25,000 of group life, the plan would automatically have another $25,000 of AD&D. The benefit as a result of accidental death would be 100 per cent of the amount. The loss of a leg or arm would be 75 per cent and loss of two legs would be 100 per cent. The loss of one hand, one foot or one eye or loss of speech would be 50 per cent. It is graded down. For quadriplegia — loss of use of both arms and legs — 100 per cent of the benefit would be payable; for paraplegia, 75 per cent and for hemiplegia, 50 per cent. In no event is more than 100 per cent of the amount paid out.
The amounts of coverage typically provided for hourly wage earners or unionized employees tend to be about one time annual earnings. It is a flat amount of money negotiated through collective bargaining. The amount of coverage for salaried employees — although it can vary — is typically two times annual earnings. There would be an equal amount of coverage for accidental death and dismemberment.
There are exclusions, as were just mentioned. In the event of suicide or self-inflicted injures, there are no benefits payable under the AD&D portion. Life insurance is payable. War is an automatic exclusion in the plans. Participating in a riot or committing a criminal offence are exclusions, so the AD&D benefit would be void.
For employees who travel outside of Canada in areas where there is some degree of danger, the war exclusion is often waived. The Canadian International Development Agency approves plan design for people with Petro Canada and other firms working abroad. They will have eliminated the war exclusion, but they will name specific countries where coverage would not be in effect.
Let us put the cost in perspective on AD&D. Generally speaking, it would be 10 per cent of the cost of the group life insurance. It is not much money.
For a family with group life, disability, and health and dental insurances, the annual cost would be around $4,000. The cost for $100,000 of AD&D would be 1 per cent of the total cost, about $40 a year — that includes the war exclusion. That price would vary if you took out the war exclusion.
AD&D is occupationally rated. Bush pilots would pay more than postal workers for that benefit. It is non- experience rated so if you have many claims, the rates stay the same based on your occupational rating. With a group such as the federal government or Armed Forces, there might be some experience rating built in depending on the how the plan was designed and underwritten by the carrier.
Benefit plans tend to have more options now. We also see flex plans. The basic life insurance at two times annual salary might have a optional element to buy additional life insurance as an employee, as well as coverage on your spouse and children. Coupled with that would be a voluntary AD&D program, possibly in amounts of up to $250,000, and sometimes more.
That plan can also be extended to cover family members. You might have $100,000 on yourself and you could, based on a schedule, have 60 per cent or 75 per cent on your spouse and then 25 per cent on your children. That is a popular benefit. There is a perception that you are doubling your insurance or getting cheap coverage. It is cheap because most people do not die accidentally; they die of natural causes.
In additional to the basic AD&D — about two times — there is voluntary AD&D. For employees who travel on company business or for senior executives, many employers will have a travel accident plan, which is really an AD&D plan for specific people. That could be from $100,000 to $400,000 or more. The rate would be based on the number of days travelling. If you are out of Canada regularly, the insurance company would rate that and you would pay the appropriate premium.
For example, if you had basic life of $100,000, voluntary of $200,000, travel accident of $200,000, you would have $500,000 of dismemberment insurance and accidental death insurance. You could argue that if you are designing a plan based on the needs of the group, that AD&D does not really fit in. If an employee dies, the dependent spouse will need a certain amount of money any way. Yet there continues to be a perception that accidental death or dismemberment is totally unexpected, catches you off guard and that there will be additional expenses.
In summary, it is an inexpensive benefit. It tends to be popular. It is conscious money for the employer in the event the employee is killed travelling. You can add spousal benefits. It is voluntary. You can compliment your existing coverage. It seems to meet some perceived needs. It continues to be popular and will be part of flex plans as we move forward.
Mr. Bernard Potvin, Mercer Human Resource Consulting: Honourable senators, as a matter of clarification, I speak on my own personal behalf. We certainly do not speak on behalf of SISIP, although our firm has been providing consulting advice to SISIP over the years. It probably would be beneficial to this committee to hear from a senior representative from SISIP. We do have knowledge of the SISIP plan and I have been asked to present a short presentation on their plan. That document has been provided to you, I believe.
Those few pages contain a short historical background on SISIP, which was created in 1969. The aim is to provide life insurance and disability income protection for Canadian Forces members. It was created because of an identified lack of protection for the members. The plan was first set up as a non-public entity, fully funded by the Armed Forces members. A few years later, some public contributions came into the plan through the Treasury Board of Canada. Since then, the plan has expanded to provide a number of other financial services to the members of the Canadian Forces community, their dependents and to retired members. Included are financial planning, counselling, education and other services through the Canadian Forces Personnel Assistance Fund. Since 1996, SISIP has been operating as a division of the DND Canadian Forces Personnel Support Agency.
Page 3 of the document shows an overview of the main insurance coverage provided under SISIP. It shows the benefits provided to regular, reserve, and former members of the Canadian Forces. Under the long-term disability plans, some income protection is provided. Optional life insurance protection is offered to members of the Canadian Forces. ``Optional group term insurance'' is offered to the regular members. The ``Reserve term insurance plan'' is offered to the reservists. ``Coverage after release'' is available to the members released from the forces. In addition, the ``general officer insurance plan'' is provided to senior members of the Armed Forces, the colonels and generals.
Page 4 of the document shows the long-term disability plan. This plan is designed as an income-replacement program. That is an important feature. Its aim is to ensure that in the event of disability, appropriate income will replace the income lost as a result of disability. That is the primary aim of the program.
The program is funded 85 per cent by the Government of Canada through Treasury Board, and 15 per cent is funded by the Canadian Forces members. For colonels and generals, the Government of Canada funds 100 per cent. The benefit level is 75 per cent of pay upon release resulting from disability. That means a Canadian Forces member who is released as a result of disability will see 75 per cent of his monthly pay replaced.
The next item is long-term disability — the LTD benefit. This item is integrated with benefits payable under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the CFSA — which is essentially the retirement pension program for Canadian Forces members — the Canadian Pension Plan and the Pension Act. The Pension Act provides a disability pension for Canadian Forces members who are injured in the line of duty.
This integration is such that the total benefit payable from all of these sources equals 75 per cent of pay. This is something that is consistent with all other public sector or private sector plans. Most long-term disability programs will integrate with other sources of income such that your total income is at the goal — in this case 75 per cent. That level of benefit and the integration aspects are consistent with other programs. In fact, it is a bit richer probably than some other programs, which may only replace 65 per cent or 70 per cent.
Under the long-term disability plan, there is also a dismemberment benefit. Again, this is an income-replacement benefit and it is also subject to integration with the other plans.
Page 5 shows optional life insurance benefits. As I mentioned before, there are three types: regular members, reservists and members after release. This is essentially a lump sum benefit that is payable upon the death of the insured member. In this case, the cost is entirely funded by the members. There are no Treasury Board contributions. The coverage is optional and available up to a maximum of $400,000.
Finally, the General Officer Insurance Plan, which provides additional life and accidental death and dismemberment coverage to senior officers from the Canadian Forces ranks of colonels and above. Treasury Board covers the cost of the basic life and for the accidental death coverage and dismemberment coverage. Members pay for the additional optional life plan.
This coverage is comparable to what is offered to senior executives of the public service. In fact, the type of coverage offered is the responsibility of Treasury Board. Any changes to that program would require approval from the Treasury Board. In a sense, SISIP is the administrator of that program and the long-term disability program on behalf of the Government of Canada.
Senator Wiebe: My first question is in regard to loss of both legs. As I understand the current plan, a member of Parliament would receive $250,000 for loss of both legs.
We had before us a fellow by the name of Major Henwood earlier today, and he and other military members were under the impression that if a similar accident happened to them, they would receive a principal sum. He went on to say that one of the SISIP representatives made the statement at one of the bases that Major Henwood had received $300,000 in compensation for his loss. Unfortunately, he did not.
Is there any small print in the member of Parliament's program that would eliminate him from receiving the $250,000 if he lost both legs?
Mr. Ranger: ``Him'' being a parliamentarian?
Senator Wiebe: Yes.
Mr. Ranger: I have not read the insurance policy, itself. I have consulted the pamphlet. I am not aware of any small print.
Senator Wiebe: It appeared that a lot of members of our military were not aware of the small print either until the fact hit home. I think this is a very important question that not only parliamentarians should ask, but also members of our forces are certainly asking it now.
Mr. Potvin, from your review of the SISIP plan for long-term disability, I understood that there basically is no reimbursement under that plan for the loss of a limb, a leg or an arm or anything; it is only an amount that would cover salaries?
Mr. Potvin: That is correct, yes.
Senator Wiebe: Therefore, in the event that the loss of a limb was to be covered, the service would be brand new to the military?
Mr. Potvin: It would be a new type of coverage for regular members and reservists if it were offered as a lump sum.
Senator Wiebe: I direct this question is to all three of the witnesses. It is probably an unfair question. However, can you give us a ballpark figure of what the cost would be to provide that kind of insurance for our military personnel?
Mr. Potvin: I think it can be done. It is a difficult question to answer like this, but it is something that could be estimated. One thing that needs to be taken into account is the particular nature of the occupation of the Canadian Forces. We would first have to ensure that this type of coverage could be obtained through an insurance company, if that is the intent. Many accidental death and dismemberment benefits exclude payment for injury that is as a result of war. Alternatively, if the intent is mainly to protect Canadian Forces members who are injured while on duty, it is probably something that should be examined in the context of benefits provided under the Pension Act, which provides compensation to Canadian Forces members who are injured while on duty.
Finally, we have to look at the overall compensation that would result from dismemberment — it could be income replacement, it could be a lump sum — to ensure that it is appropriate. This would require a review of all compensation being provided.
Senator Wiebe: Mr. Mogg, would you want to give a ``guesstimate'' of what the cost would be?
Mr. Mogg: I do not know what the cost would be. If you are going to have the coverage, you should take out the exclusion. As Mr. Potvin has said, there is a price for it. I do not think we are looking at an enormous cost here. The benefit is a small price. There would be a great number of people covered, yet, as mentioned earlier, there are perhaps only 12 people in this situation. It would not be a huge financial burden, even if there were some degree of self- insurance involved.
As to the integration with other benefits, I guess it makes sense to look at the overall package rather than one benefit in isolation. They have tended to integrate this benefit with long-term disability benefits.
Senator Day: If you were trying to estimate a cost for this in negotiating a cost, would you look at the historical claims and as there are only 12, would that be a factor in determining the cost?
Mr. Mogg: Typically, you would not experience-rate a plan like this so you would not look at the experience, however, given the situation, yes.
Senator Wiebe: Mr. Potvin, the General Officers' Insurance Plan, which is a separate function for colonels and above, do they have similar benefits for the loss of both legs, for example, as a member of Parliament, for example?
Mr. Potvin: I am not familiar with the plan for the members of Parliament. However, they do have a plan that provides for accidental death or dismemberment for the general officers of the Canadian Armed Forces. The amount payable is up to $250,000, depending upon the nature of the dismemberment. That plan is in line with what is provided in other areas of the public service. As well, the RCMP has a comparable program for their senior officers.
Senator Wiebe: This leads to one more question, which will be my final question.
In Major Henwood's case, with which you are familiar, he lost both his legs beneath the knees. Had he been a colonel, and not a major, would he have received the $250,000?
Mr. Potvin: Yes.
Senator Kenny: I am having some difficulty with this concept of integration. Mr. Ranger, in the event of a parliamentarian losing his or her limbs, is the $250,000 integrated with anything?
Mr. Ranger: No, it is not. It is a lump sum payment.
Senator Kenny: Mr. Potvin and Mr. Mogg, you have both, to varying degrees, talked about integrating benefits as being a good idea. For the life of me, I do not understand why it is a good idea. If you have been paying into a pension for a period of time, you are earning that pension. You have a right to it. Why is it a good idea that it should be integrated into something when you lose your legs? What have I missed?
Mr. Potvin: Perhaps the first thing is that the program that we are talking about, this long-term disability program, is meant as an income replacement program.
Senator Kenny: I understand that. In fairness, if you retire at full pension, you get 75 per cent of your income. However, if you retire without legs, 75 per cent of your income does not look so terrific any more. You may have all sorts of other things that make life really difficult and perhaps you want 100 per cent of your income or 125 per cent of your income. I would understand an accumulation approach but I do not understand an integrated one.
Mr. Potvin: Perhaps it is important to separate the two different things. If a benefit should be payable as income replacement, and if you want the accepted insurance principle to be that income replacement, you should only replace the income once. That is why benefits are integrated. You will find that throughout the industry, whether it is a private plan or a public one. If a disability occurs and your income is replaced as a result of it, all sources of income will be integrated so that you only replace that income once.
If it is deemed that there should be additional benefits payable because of the nature of the disability — in this case, a dismemberment — then that additional benefit probably should not be integrated. Therefore, the question is: What portion of a benefit that might have been payable would be deemed to be income replacement and what portion would be deemed to be as a result of a loss of enjoyment of life? Unfortunately, the disability pensions payable under the Pension Act do not necessarily make a distinction between income replacement and loss of enjoyment of life. Perhaps that is one thing that should be looked at.
Senator Kenny: It is not even replacing income. It is replacing three-quarters of it.
Mr. Potvin: In the case of SISIP, it is replacing three-quarters thereof.
Senator Kenny: That is not replacing income. We are missing 25 per cent somewhere.
Mr. Potvin: You are right. Again, it is something that is common in the industry. Most income replacement plans that are disability programs will replace somewhere between 60 per cent to 75 per cent of income. Most plans do not fully replace the income.
Senator Kenny: That does not make it right, though, does it?
Mr. Potvin: I cannot comment on that. I can tell you is that it is the industry standard.
Senator Kenny: When we are talking here about replacing someone's income if their career is terminated in an untimely fashion as a result of injuries, the calculation is based on something significantly lower than what they might have had if they had been able to work for another decade. The 75 per cent figure that might arrive at the end of one's career can be a significantly different figure, much lower if you are career is terminated 10 or 15 years prematurely and you are suppose to go the rest of your life on that.
Mr. Potvin: That is true. The long-term disability benefits are indexed to some extent. However, you are correct, it would not duplicate what a career in the Armed Forces would pay, you are absolutely correct.
Senator Kenny: Perhaps I am asking for a value judgment, however, do you see a lack of fairness anywhere here?
Mr. Potvin: I supposed when you are talking about disability income replacement, you must look at what is done elsewhere, for example, whether it is a private or public sector disability plan, the replacement calculation is done at the time of disability and in some cases the benefits will be indexed. However, that does not happen all the time. Some plans do not provide for indexation of benefits.
The Chairman: Would it not also be fair to say that, while most plans, as you have said, provide for 65 per cent to 75 per cent of income replacement, most plans also provide for a lump sum payment in the event of dismemberment. In some way, could one not argue that is a provision to cover loss of future earnings because you are dismembered and cannot earn the same as you could?
Mr. Potvin: Several plans do provide that. It is normally done through a separate plan and not through a long-term disability program, which is an income replacement plan. Several organizations will provide accidental death and dismemberment coverage. Through these plans, a lump sum payment will be made in case of dismemberment. Certainly not all employers provide that, but about 60 per cent of employers will provide plans like that.
It is something that is not provided currently to the majority of employees in the public service. The compensation and benefits are aligned with those in the public service plan, which may be part of the reason that they are not provided to members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Another important point is that, when comparing plans available outside the Canadian Forces, the dismemberment benefits are provided through a workers' compensation benefit. We can draw a short parallel between workers' compensation benefits and the Pension Act, which covers injuries sustained in the line of duty. Again, if such benefits were provided to members of the Canadian Armed Forces, there is the question as to whether the benefit should be provided through the Pension Act, especially if the primary intent is to guard against injuries in the line of duty.
The Chairman: Leaving aside the fact that it is provided to the ranks of colonel and above. Would you agree, Mr. Mogg, given that they have managed to find a way to do it for the senior ranks, with that 60 per cent figure put forward by Mr. Potvin?
Mr. Mogg: That would be for long-term disability. Some of those benefits are non-taxable, so when the tax calculation is done, it is much closer.
My name was mentioned in the context of the discussion of integration. I would like to come back to that because integration bothers me. The accidental death and dismemberment benefit in the private sector is never integrated with any other benefit; it is a lump sum payment. I would agree with your observations.
On the topic of integration, Major Henwood mentioned that the pension benefit was being offset, I believe, by a full CPP. That follows with the dependent benefits as well.
Mr. Potvin: For long-term disability, I believe it is the primary CPP disability benefit, which does not include dependents.
Mr. Mogg: I thought he was being penalized because he had three children, which I would not agree with — that integration. Primary benefits should be payable to the individual and not payable because there is a spouse and/or dependent children.
Senator Kenny: It was our impression that he was being penalized because he had dependents.
Mr. Mogg: That is what I thought, too.
The Chairman: His 75 per cent was made up to other pensions to which he was entitled by reason of the fact he was a major, has three children and is married.
Senator Day: These benefits fell under the Pension Act, for example, which resulted in him not receiving SISIP.
Senator Kenny: He was, therefore, double screwed.
Mr. Mogg, who decides what constitutes ``war,'' in insurance parlance?
Mr. Mogg: I am not exactly sure. However, there are legal definitions of ``insurrection'' and ``civil strife,'' however, I am not sure of the precise definitions. I am not sure where they draw the line with the definition of ``war.''
Senator Kenny: When soldiers go overseas, how is it handled? Are certain countries designated war zones? Knowing what is a war and what is not a war seems to be the key element if you are a potential beneficiary of an insurance policy.
Mr. Potvin: Generally speaking, there will be countries or areas designated as war zones. Essentially, if there is war exclusion in the policy, then the war exclusion could be triggered in such an area.
Senator Kenny: Generally speaking, are all beneficiaries sent a notice that a certain area has been declared a war zone and, therefore, one should not go there and if one does go, then one should take extra precautions?
Mr. Potvin: In respect of Canadian Armed Forces members, war exclusions will often have a general exclusion for someone who is actually executing military duties. In some cases, it may depend on whether it is a designated war zone.
Senator Kenny: In this case, it was a UN observer in an area to look at the situation in a rapidly changing environment. My question is: Are beneficiaries customarily advised on the areas of the world that would raise exclusion in their coverage?
Mr. Potvin: Are you speaking of SISIP, specifically?
Senator Kenny: For starters, sure, and I will expand the question: How does one know when the insurance does not work — for SISIP and other life insurance policies?
Mr. Potvin: The protection available under SISIP contains provisions such that there would be no war exclusion.
Senator Kenny: Basically, a soldier could go anywhere and be covered.
Mr. Potvin: That is correct.
Senator Kenny: In terms of other policies, how does one generally know if there will be an exclusion because of some major force, act of God, or war?
Mr. Mogg: There would be the standard three or four exclusions in the policy. Take my example of bush pilots. If you had to write out an exclusion, ``flying as a member of the crew,'' you would want to tell the bush pilots they were not covered while in the air.
Senator Kenny: If, for example, I had a typical term life policy and flew to Bosnia today, should I expect my agent to have sent me a letter that states Bosnia is not a good place to go if I want that term life to be in effect? Or, am I expected to call my agent to make an inquiry about going to Bosnia and still being covered?
Mr. Mogg: I would think that there is, right or wrong, a general assumption that you have read the booklet and that you understand the benefits.
Senator Kenny: I have and it says that I cannot go to war zones. However, how am I to know what the insurance agency or the underwriter has designated as a war zone?
Mr. Mogg: I am not sure what the answer to that is.
Senator Kenny: For the purposes of this question, I am assuming that the policy states that it is not in effect if the beneficiary goes to a war zone. I accept that. However, if I understood the panel earlier, war zones were being defined by underwriters as situations changed. A country could be a war zone one month and not be the next month, depending on the assessment of the underwriter. Is that correct?
Mr. Mogg: Yes.
Senator Kenny: How, then, does the beneficiary know that the underwriters made this judgment, normally speaking?
Mr. Mogg: It is my understanding that the policyholder — the employer — would be advised. That way, if employees are being sent to a certain part of the world, it would be known in advance that the policy would be void in that area. Thus, it would be the responsibility of the plan sponsor to advise the plan members. That would be the logical communication route.
Senator Kenny: You would also assume from that that if you were not advised, it was okay to go and you would be covered. You would have an argument.
Mr. Mogg: You might, yes.
Senator Kenny: For a moment the committee was playing with the idea of how much it would cost to provide such coverage. At any given time, we are unlikely to see 10 per cent of the Canadian Armed Forces in harm's way and, therefore, 90 per cent that are not in harm's way. It has been a long time since Canada was at war. Currently, we know of only 12 people. It is unreasonable for us to ask you to do an actuarial calculation while sitting there but how do we get a sense of what the cost would be?
Mr. Mogg: You would return to your consulting firm that would probably talk to insurance companies that provide that kind of coverage. They would then negotiate a price on your behalf.
Senator Kenny: Are there insurance companies that insure soldiers who go to combat zones?
Mr. Mogg: I do not know the answer to that specific question.
Senator Kenny: Does anyone know the answer to that?
Mr. Potvin: Currently, SISIP members of the Canadian Armed Forces are insured for —
Senator Kenny: — income maintenance.
Mr. Potvin: SISIP provides income maintenance, but there are also life insurance benefits to the members.
Senator Kenny: It is also conceivable if you are dealing with an entity the size of the Government of Canada that you self-insure. That is perhaps a cheaper option.
Mr. Potvin: It certainly could be. You might at least want a guarantee that the Government of Canada would, in the case of significant financial loss, provide some kind of re-insurance. That type of arrangement would certainly help.
The Chairman: Maybe we could find out the cost of dismemberment payments for colonels and above.
Senator Kenny: I am sure that is provided by an insurance company.
Mr. Potvin: An insurance company provides it, yes.
Senator Kenny: Does the Department of National Defence pay that premium?
Mr. Potvin: Yes, Treasury Board reimburses the cost of the premium paid by the Department of National Defence.
Senator Kenny: To be clear, Treasury Board does not pay anything. They may process the cheque but it comes out of the defence budget, does it not?
Mr. Potvin: I am not sure.
Senator Kenny: How about with the Senate, Mr. Ranger? Could you tell us where the money comes from for the Senate?
Mr. Ranger: Every department has a statutory appropriation that provides for the payment of employee benefits, including insurance.
Senator Kenny: Would it be a fair guess that this is coming out of the defence budget?
Mr. Ranger: It is.
Senator Kenny: Treasury Board provides that the rules are followed properly.
Mr. Ranger: It is a charge-back from Treasury Board to the various departments.
Senator Forrestall: I am having difficulty understanding why I have not heard the term ``special duty area.'' How can you provide such a broad blanket of assistance and coverage and not understand the mechanics of the process? The term ``special duty area'' is the definition of a war zone, but it is done by Order in Council, so that not every service person offshore is in what could be construed as a war zone. Frankly, if you are wearing a uniform on and someone shoots at you, you are in a war zone, as far as I am concerned.
I will read what the government says about this because it is relatively important. I had asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate with respect to the preciseness of that definition. I quote from the March 19, 2002 Debates of the Senate, my question having been, ``It is in regard to the preciseness with which Canadian Forces are operating in Afghanistan and generally on service in Operation Apollo.'' This question had to do with the definition of that area. She could not give me an answer. I quote again:
I thought the matter was covered in the Order in Council. It is a particularly narrow issue, although it is not narrow in terms of those who would receive pension benefits. However, in my reading of the answer to your question, it is not necessarily covered.
That is a very serious comment and observation. In other words, we will fix it or not. If there is an Order in Council, that is good. If there is not, we will reach back and make one retroactive. We are sending people into harm's way with this in back of them; that is, with respect to the application of the very rigid rules under which insurance policies are effective.
There is a difference. There is a lower level of evidence with respect to injuries and compensatory matters for a serviceman in a war zone than there is otherwise. There is a higher presumed incidence of probability of getting hurt when someone is shooting at you than if you are pushing paper at DND HQ.
Are you not, Mr. Potvin, aware of the definition of being ``an area of interest''? Would that not be the definition that the private sector would adopt for its own purposes?
Mr. Potvin: I interpreted the original question to be how the industry at large defines a war zone, as opposed to someone who is serving in the military. You referred to special duty areas. It is my understanding that it is a concept used under the Pension Act for example. With respect to SISIP benefits, whether an injury or an accident occurs in a special duty area or not, the benefits are, for the most part, the same. The distinction is mainly for the purpose of Pension Act benefits.
Senator Forrestall: That is fine, it is something we will pursue with the departmental people themselves.
To come back to Senator Kenny's concern, upon which I had based my supplementary. There is little question in my mind that the obviously health and intelligent witness we heard this morning would have preferred to stay on to complete his commitment. However, as a result of corrective procedures taken at the time of the accident, he was denied natural progression in rank. One might ask, if he became a general or full colonel, could he retroactively say he had his legs blown off and request compensation? I would not want to have to say no and then defend the ``no'' in a court of law.
In this case, I think he did the calculations himself, because he mentioned that a figure in excess of $2 million was potentially lost. If he had progressed normally up the ranks to the lieutenant colonel, the loss of his pay is nowhere near being met by 75 per cent of his pay at the time of the accident when he was a major. He is a young man with children to put through university and he is frozen at 75 per cent of a lower level, not 75 per cent of the obligation we would have willingly paid him had he stayed on or not been injured. How do we protect our men and women against that kind of anomaly? The amount of money this has cost us so far seems irrelevant in terms of the goodwill and well- being of the men and women in the Canadian armed forces. Someone said it has cost $10 million. I cannot believe that 12 people get $10 or $12 million a year. That is pretty good compensation. All people should have it.
What about that philosophically? What about that loss of potential? What about the potential to which Senator Kenny was referring? Do we not have an obligation to take it into consideration?
Mr. Potvin: That is an excellent question. What is the responsibility of the Government of Canada toward someone who becomes injured like this while on duty? I am not sure that I have the answer to that question.
The Chairman: What happens in the private sector?
Mr. Mogg: If you became disabled in the private sector, you would be paid your long-term disability benefits, but you would continue to accrue pension benefits under the pension plan and service. When you reach the age of 65, the long-term disability would stop and you would take your pension. However, your pension would not cease at the time of the disability as a relatively young person.
Senator Forrestall: Is the pension plan a good one, a better one or is it the best one, or should we rethink the whole thing?
Mr. Mogg: Yes.
Senator Forrestall: Yes, what?
The Chairman: Mr. Mogg is from the private sector.
Mr. Potvin: Are you referring to the pension plan specifically or to the overall benefits?
Senator Forrestall: I am not asking you to comment on whether the total compensation package for the Armed Forces is best or is better than something else. In a philosophical way, is the nature of the compensation that we offer men and women who we place deliberately in harm's way for the good of Canadians, a good, better or best plan? Should we have the best plan? Where does our present plan rank?
Mr. Potvin: It is difficult for me to comment on that. The pension and benefits package offered to the members is a good overall package. It would be difficult for me to comment on whether it is the right one.
Senator Forrestall: Were you here this morning for Major Henwood's presentation?
Mr. Potvin: I saw part of his presentation, yes.
Senator Forrestall: You know that he would disagree with you?
Mr. Potvin: I know that. A good package does not mean that there are not some issues that need to be addressed.
Senator Day: Mr. Potvin, I am looking at the historical background section in your brief and I would like a couple clarifications. You indicated that the income security insurance plan for the Armed Forces was initially set up as a non- public entity. Could you explain briefly what that was?
Mr. Potvin: I forget the formal name, I think it was non-public fund entity, but essentially the plan was fully paid for by Canadian Forces members. There was no public funding of the plan.
Senator Day: If it is a non-public entity, the members, not the government, are paying for it?
Mr. Potvin: Initially, that was how it was. It is not the case any more.
Senator Day: In 1969, the Income Security Plan for the armed forces was set up to offer life insurance and disability income protection. Was the integrated approach for disability included at that time?
Mr. Potvin: I believe that it has always been there. My understanding it has been there since the beginning, but I am not 100 per cent certain.
Senator Day: Mr. Mogg has stated that it is no longer common in the private sector to consider all these other incomes that you might be receiving through various pension benefits and programs in order to determine what, if any, payment you would be getting for dismemberment. That plan was introduced for the Armed Forces in 1969 and has not been changed. Is that correct?
Mr. Potvin: It has not been changed in that respect. However, it is still common to consider other benefits from the perspective of the income replacement plan.
Senator Day: I understand, but we are not focusing on that today. From an income replacement point of view, it is common to take into consideration other sources of income to take you up to 75 per cent of salary.
I want to focus on the accidental death and dismemberment aspect.
Mr. Potvin: That plan is meant to be an income replacement plan. It was not meant to provide a lump sum benefit.
Senator Day: However, we have agreed that there are two aspects: the income replacement, and the accidental death and dismemberment. You have them confused in terms of the integration and looking at other sources of income in order to determine, for both of them, whether there is an entitlement. Is that correct?
Mr. Potvin: I would not say that I have confused them. You are saying in that program there is a dismemberment component.
Senator Day: You are applying the approach that you take for income replacement. You are applying that approach to the accidental death and dismemberment aspect, which is not what they do in the private sector. Has it been like that since 1969, and why was that approach chosen in 1969?
Mr. Potvin: I cannot explain why that approach was taken in 1969. However, the focus of that plan was income replacement, and that is why it was structured that way.
Senator Day: When was the general officer program implemented as part of the overall insurance plan? You told us that there is a dismemberment aspect for general officers that provides a lump sum.
Mr. Potvin: You are correct. It is a totally separate plan.
Senator Day: When was that introduced?
Mr. Potvin: In the 1970s or early 1980s.
Senator Day: Why was it restricted to full colonels and above?
Mr. Potvin: That question would be better answered by someone from SISIP. However, my understanding is that that benefit is provided to senior officers to be consistent with what is offered in the public service.
Senator Day: Do you know whether, at the time it was introduced for the general officers, it was considered that this might be a good plan for all of the Armed Forces personnel?
Mr. Potvin: I do not know.
Senator Day: Are you aware that there are number of general officers who were not aware of this and are quite embarrassed that they have better protection than the very people they are sending into harm's way?
Mr. Potvin: I understand what you are saying. It is also a matter of looking at the overall compensation provided to the regular force members and where it should come from. Much has been said about SISIP, but SISIP may not be the place for such provision. If it is felt that the protection provided to Canadian Forces members is not adequate, perhaps the government should provide it. Perhaps it should be provided through the Pension Act, rather than SISIP.
Senator Day: The lump sum portion for general officers is one of the aspects of SISIP. It is in there now, correct?
Mr. Potvin: Yes. It is administered by SISIP, provided by the Government of Canada through the Treasury Board.
Senator Day: Earlier, we clarified that SISIP is funded by Treasury Board, but it is effectively part of the budget for National Defence?
Mr. Potvin: That is my understanding, yes.
Senator Day: Mr. Ranger has clarified that for us.
Is the SISIP income replacement program mandatory for the Armed Forces personnel?
Mr. Potvin: Yes.
Senator Day: Where do I go to find out how much has been collected and how much has been paid out? Is the accounting done separately so that I can follow it?
Mr. Potvin: Probably someone from SISIP could better answer that. The money is accounted for.
Senator Day: In 1996, SISIP became an operating division of DND Canadian Forces Personnel Support Agency. Is that a public or a non-public-funded agency?
Mr. Potvin: The entity is not public. The Canadian Forces Personnel Support Agency is non-public.
Senator Day: That was my understanding as well. SISIP now has a non-public agency collecting mandatory payments from Armed Forces personnel on a regular basis?
Mr. Potvin: The long-term disability program, which is publicly funded, is accountable to the Treasury Board of Canada. Any money collected under that program, although administered by SISIP, would be accountable to the Government of Canada.
Senator Day: It is my understanding, as we heard from Major Henwood, that Maritime Life is carrier for the insurance.
Mr. Potvin: That is correct.
Senator Day: SISIP collects a fee but they go to someone else to carry the insurance?
Mr. Potvin: Someone else provides the insurance coverage, yes.
Senator Day: Maritime Life has been the carrier since 1969?
Mr. Potvin: Yes.
Senator Day: Is there a periodic public tendering or is this all done as a non-public agency? This is done without public tendering?
Mr. Potvin: Again, representatives from SISIP would be in a better position to answer that question.
Senator Day: You answered Senator Wiebe by saying that if a full colonel had lost his legs in the same situation, he would have received a $250,000 lump sum payment for dismemberment. If it had been a mid-level management person working in a civilian capacity at DND under the Public Service Management Insurance Plan, would that person also have received compensation in a lump sum payment of $250,000?
Mr. Potvin: I am not as familiar with the Public Service Management Insurance Plan. They do provide to their senior executives some basic accidental death coverage. I am not sure whether it covers middle management.
Mr. Ranger: The booklet I have states, ``This booklet describes the employer-paid coverage which is available exclusively to these senior level employees...'' It refers to ``senior level'' employees.
Senator Day: We would have to go to some contract somewhere to find out if a person of the level of major in a civilian capacity at DND would be covered?
Mr. Ranger: The Treasury Board secretariat could tell you that.
Senator Day: Major Henwood informed us that, to the best of his knowledge, if he had been a civilian he would have received $250,000 for losing his legs. If he had been a colonel, he would have received $250,000. However, because he was a man in uniform serving his country, he did not receive anything. Do you have any reason to disagree with that?
Mr. Ranger: No.
The Chairman: Mr. Ranger, your evidence was that if any senator or member of the Parliament of Canada lost both legs, that member would get a $250,000 lump sum payment. What would happen if a Senate employee, let us say a messenger, suffered that loss?
Mr. Ranger: I cannot tell you.
The Chairman: Are there two different plans as between employees of Parliament and members of Parliament?
Mr. Ranger: Yes, there are two.
The Chairman: Can you get that information, perhaps for the different positions, such as committee clerk or messenger or protective staff or Black Rod for that matter?
Mr. Ranger: Yes.
The Chairman: Thank you.
If there are no other questions from senators, we have one matter of housekeeping to complete. Before doing so, I express our thanks to our witnesses. We appreciate that some of our questions have perhaps been slightly outside your immediate areas of responsibility but we are grateful for your frankness and for the helpful information that you provided.
Before adjourning, the clerk has suggested that I request a motion that materials submitted by witnesses at meetings of our subcommittee, or following meetings, as well as material provided to us during fact-finding trips be filed as exhibits with the clerk.
Senator Day: I so move.
Senator Wiebe: I second the motion.
The Chairman: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The committee adjourned.